惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

罗磊的独立博客
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
IT之家
IT之家
小众软件
小众软件
博客园_首页
G
Google Developers Blog
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
Jina AI
Jina AI
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
B
Blog RSS Feed
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
D
Docker
B
Blog
雷峰网
雷峰网
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享

Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Blog

EU Cyber Resilience Act Reporting Obligations Take Effect for Manufacturers Delaware Expands State Privacy Law Dutch DPA Fines Uber Over Automated Decisions Affecting Drivers European Commission Designates ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox Under the Digital Services Act China Issues New Rules on Cyberspace Security Inspection Court Approves Meta Settlement With 29 States Over Alleged Harms to Children and Teens FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing New Jersey Enacts the Kids Code Act with Privacy-by-Default and Safety-by-Design Obligations White House Memorandum Establishes Framework for Government-Directed Private-Sector Cyber Operations FTC, California and Utah Sue Telehealth Company Hims & Hers for Deceptive and Unlawful Privacy Practices CalPrivacy Settles with Two Data Brokers over Registration Failures and Privacy Violations New York Attorney General Releases Final Rules for SAFE for Kids Act EDPB Adopts Guidelines on Anonymous Data, Web Scraping, and Blockchain China Publishes Official Q&A on Administrative Policies for Cross-Border Data Transfers Hawaii Enacts AI Companion Disclosure and Safety Law EDPB Calls for Review of EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework After U.S. Supreme Court Decision on FTC Independence CNIL Issues FAQs on Recommendation for Tracking Pixels in Emails European Commission Issues Guidance on the Cyber Resilience Act European Commission Issues EU AI Act Transparency Guidelines EU Digital Omnibus on AI Enters Into Force Connecticut AG Leads Multistate Settlement With 23andMe Over 2023 Data Breach CalPrivacy Targets Gig Economy Tech Platforms in First CCPA Compliance Audit New Jersey Adopts New Data Broker Registration Regime and Sensitive Data Sale and Licensing Restrictions CISA Plans to Finalize Cyber Incident Reporting Regulations in September 2026 Illinois Governor Signs Frontier AI Model Law New Hampshire Amends the NHDPA to Prohibit the Sale of Children’s Personal Data Canada’s Proposed Social Media Ban for Children and Chatbot Regulation: Bill C-34’s Impact on Platforms European Commission Unveils Cybersecurity and AI Action Plan European Commission Refers Four Member States to CJEU Over NIS2 Transposition Delays EDPB Opens Public Consultation on New Personal Data Breach Notification Template
Maryland Enacts First-of-its-Kind Ban on Surveillance Pri...
2026-05-06 · via Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Blog

On April 28, 2026, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law House Bill 895, the Protection From Predatory Pricing Act (the “Act”), which regulates certain personalized pricing practices used by grocery stores and grocery delivery services. Notably, the Act places substantive limits on how covered businesses may use consumers’ personal data in setting food prices and on certain uses of personal data of members of legally protected classes.

The Act takes effect on October 1, 2026.

Scope of the Act

The Act applies to “food retailers” and “third-party delivery service providers.” A “food retailer” is defined as a merchant operating a business establishment with at least 15,000 square feet that sells food exempt from Maryland sales and use tax under Tax-General § 11-206(c) (i.e., grocery stores). A “third-party delivery service provider” refers to a business that, as a service to consumers, arranges for the delivery of food that qualifies for exemption from sales and use tax under the same provision.

Prohibition on Dynamic Pricing

The Act prohibits food retailers and third-party delivery service providers from using dynamic pricing to set the price of groceries, or to set a higher price for groceries for specific consumers. “Dynamic pricing” means “offering or setting a personalized price for a good or service that is specific to a consumer based on the consumer’s personal data, regardless of whether the seller collected or purchased the personal data.” (The Act incorporates the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act’s definition of “personal data,” meaning information linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable consumer.)

The Act separately prohibits using the personal data of members of legally protected classes to offer, advertise, or sell consumer goods or services where such use results in a consumer being denied or withheld an accommodation, advantage, or privilege provided to others.

Key Exceptions

The Act’s prohibitions on dynamic pricing do not apply to promotional pricing offers, loyalty or rewards program benefits, subscription-based contracts, or other temporary discounts or pricing changes related to the retention of existing customers. The Act’s dynamic pricing restrictions also do not apply to price differences based on objective criteria, such as costs attributable to (i) serving different consumers (e.g., shipping costs or taxes based on a consumer’s physical location); (ii) costs or differences in supply or demand associated with providing a good or service in different locations; (iii) costs associated with the availability or supply of a good or service; and (iv) corrections resulting from pricing errors.

Additionally, the Act permits food retailers and third-party delivery service providers to offer prices to consumers who consent to provide their personal data or other information in exchange for obtaining the relevant price.

Enforcement

The Maryland Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Act. The Act provides a guaranteed 45-day cure period with no sunset. The Act does not provide for a private right of action. Violators who fail to cure within the 45-day period may be subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation or, up to $25,000 per violation for repeat offenders.

State Trends

Other states, such as California (AB-2564), Colorado (HB26-1210), Illinois (SB-2255), New Jersey (SB-3612) and New York (SB-S8623), are considering introducing surveillance pricing bans similar to Maryland's.

In addition to surveillance pricing bans, restrictions on algorithmic pricing are increasing throughout the U.S. For example, New York recently enacted a law that imposes new disclosure requirements on the use of AI for algorithmic pricing.

Takeaways

The Act is the first state law to directly prohibit certain personalized pricing practices, rather than simply requiring disclosures requiring the use of such pricing. The law’s breadth, along with its many exceptions, means that businesses will need to carefully assess whether existing pricing practices are subject to the Act’s restrictions and requirements.